39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:15:09 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:42:45 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-12 09:30:05 -0400, "Hertz Dount"
said:

In order to impeach, there must be impeachable offenses.

Bull****. All that's needed to impeach is a vindictive Congress. That
was demonstrated conclusively in 1998.


...and a sitting President who committed a felony. The operative word here
is
FELONY. Remember that before throwing around such phrases as "vindictive
Congress."

Uh, no. The operative words are "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors."

And you would lose in court. Lying to the Supreme Court is perjury. Lying
to Congress i perjury. Going on national television and lying to every man,
woman and child in the country is perjury and despicable.


The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

The perjury that clinton committed was a felony.


Honu

George Graves wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:27:57 -0700, Matthew L. Martin wrote
(in article ):

George Graves wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:03:44 -0700, James Davis wrote
(in article . com):

On Jul 7, 9:34 pm, George Graves wrote:
What we need in this
country is a recall procedure where the people can vote "no confidence"
to a
sitting administration like they do in Great Britain.
Right now about 30% of Americans are very happy with President Bush,
who was elected by a 51% majority. While I personally believe he's a
moron, there is no rule that says it's undemocratic for a president to
only please 30% of the population. There could be some time in the
future where angering 70% of the population is the right thing to do.
If you had to please the majority of people, then we wouldn't even
elect presidents. We would just vote on issues and the majority vote
would decide what to do.
I understand that and its sorta my point.
It would be unfair to the 30% of Americans who like Bush to impeach
him unless he has done something illegal.

As I said. I think he's a lousy president who has done ABSOLUTELY nothing
in
his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. Not one piece
of
legislation has he introduced! But until he actually breaks the law, he
is,
AFAIK, unimpeachable.

I guess that you haven't read Bill Odom's recent piece. He makes an
excellent case for impeachment of Bush.

Matthew



I guess I haven't and who the hell is Bill Odom and where can I read about
his piece.

Thank you for proving that you are so ignorant and stupid that anything
you have to say about current politics has no meaning.

Try using google. It is your friend. You just might learn something, if
that is possible.

Hint. He was a Reagan appointee.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:22:03 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

On 2007-07-12 21:02:22 -0400, DCA said:

Because they absolutely could not handle another 8 years of peace and
prosperity, annually decreasing gas prices, higher paying jobs, cleaner
ounce-of-prevention environmental policies, better educational
opportunities, lower taxes for working people and healthier economy via
fiscal surpluses and higher taxes on the rich.

I haven't noticed all those things. What I have noticed is incompetence
in handling terrorism (Al-Qaeda is better equipped to attack us
presently than ever before), in handling natural disasters (remember
Katrina?), in convincing the public of the government's honesty, in
maintaining freedom as opposed to Big Brother-like surveillance, etc.,
etc.


Uh, Mr. Sechumlib, he was referring to CLINTON'S administration, not Bush's
(peace, prosperity, jobs, educational programs, lower taxes for the average
Joe, etc). IOW, he's saying that those things come naturally from having a
Democrat in the White House. It's bull****, (Remember Jimmy Carter and
double-digit inflation, gas lines, etc. followed by one of the largest growth
spurts in US History under Ronnie?). Truth is that the President has little
to do with the economy. Just because Roosevelt was able to socialize the
country enough to mitigate the great depression (somewhat) doesn't mean that
the President always has control over the economy.

In order to impeach, there must be impeachable offenses.
Bull****. All that's needed to impeach is a vindictive Congress. That
was demonstrated conclusively in 1998.

...and a sitting President who committed a felony. The operative word here is
FELONY. Remember that before throwing around such phrases as "vindictive
Congress."

Uh, no. The operative words are "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors."

The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

and perjury is a felony.


--

- Call me ruthless, amoral, but never call me dishonest. -

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:29:44 -0700, George Graves
wrote:


It's supposed to be. If a sitting president is guilty of a criminal offense
or falls under any of the other categories such as treason or bribery, he is
SUPPOSED to be impeached.

If he hasn't been convicted in a court of law how do you know
he's guilty?

Of course, partisan politics comes into play here.
A Democratic President would likely not be impeached by a majority Democratic
Congress (and vice versa) unless there was no way around it (like a murder
conviction, for instance).

Oh. You mean if he was first convicted in a court of law. So
since Clinton was never convicted of anything in a court of law,
he shouldn't have been impeached.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:58:34 -0400, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2007-07-12 17:29:44 -0400, George Graves said:

If a sitting president is guilty of a criminal offense
or falls under any of the other categories such as treason or bribery, he is
SUPPOSED to be impeached.

Please cite a Supreme Court decision on that point.

Don't need one. Teh constitution says,

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the
United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for,
and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.

But that does not *require* the House of Representatives to bring
articles of impeachment.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:09:52 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:15:09 -0700, George Graves
wrote:


And you would lose in court. Lying to the Supreme Court is perjury.

So far, so good. That can be true. But note that if I run into
the Supreme Court chambers and yell to the assembled justices
that the building is on fire when I know it isn't, it would not
be perjury.

Lying to Congress i perjury.

Yep. That can be true, but see example exception above.

Going on national television and lying to every man,
woman and child in the country is perjury and despicable.

But that's not true. Perjury consists of lying under oath. Lying
to the public may be despicable, but it's not perjury.


The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

The perjury that clinton committed was a felony.

If he had been convicted. No one, repeat, no one, can legally be
called a felon unless he or she has been convicted of a felony.
And to call someone a felon when he has not been convicted of a
felony could end you up in court on the defendant end of a
defamation suit.



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:02:38 -0500, Anonymouse
wrote:


In order to impeach, there must be impeachable offenses.
Bull****. All that's needed to impeach is a vindictive Congress. That
was demonstrated conclusively in 1998.

...and a sitting President who committed a felony. The operative word here is
FELONY. Remember that before throwing around such phrases as "vindictive
Congress."

Uh, no. The operative words are "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors."

The word "felony" does not appear there, although treason,
bribery and high crimes might be felonies. But misdemeanors are
definitiely not felonies.

and perjury is a felony.

And one has not committed a felony unless one has been convicted
thereof.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:25:03 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:54:36 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:50:09 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:34:33 -0700, Hatunen wrote
(in article ):

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:18:20 -1000, "Hertz Dount"
wrote:


The House just has to say something is an impeachable offense. There are
no rules.

There is a rule. It's just a bit vague in places: "The President,
Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall
be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Treason is very well defined in the Constitution itself; bribery
is pretty well defined legally. It's "high crimes" and
"misdeanors" that get a little vague, but it was an adoption from
English law.

The discussion at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/012.pdf gives a
pretty up to date overview of the matter beginning on page 611,
whihc is PDF page 183 of 194.

Note particularly that indictable crimes need not be the basis
for impeachment.



But perjury is a "high-crime" as it's a felony.

I'm a bit hazy on what that has to do with "There are no rules".



But there are rules. That's the point.

Well, duh. That's what I just said.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:23:38 -0700, George Graves
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:57:11 -0700, sechumlib wrote
(in article ):

It's very much like what Ogden Nash said in is verses to Saint-Saens'
"Carnival of the Animals":

"In the world of mules
There are no rules."


But I suspect that a world of Donkeys will work just as well even if it no
longer rhymes.

Do you understand what a mule is?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *